General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas Trump Violated the Constitution on his Statement to Fire NFL Players?
Donald Trump is the executive branch of the United States Government.
The first Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech". Through many years of precedent, "Congress", has been interpreted by the courts to mean the entire government "shall not abridge the freedom of speech" of American citizens.
The President*, any President, has every right to disagree with anything anyone says. But he (or she) cannot threaten anyone, directly or indirectly, for the free exercise of that right.
Me or you (as long as we don't have authority in the US Government) can absolutely call for the firing of anyone for saying anything we disagree with, but a government official, especially the President, can not.
The NFL and ESPN are regulated by the US Government in many areas. The Chief Executive, or his spokeswoman, calling on the firing of any individual for exercising his or her free speech is an obvious violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)
Doreen
(11,686 posts)Can trump fire JUST ANYBODY?
If trump gets bad service at a restaurant can he fire the person or is that the choice of the owner or manager only?
louis c
(8,652 posts)bad service is not protected under the first amendment, political speech is. If the waitress told Trump that she didn't vote for him and didn't agree with his policies and was an "employee at will", the owner could fire her. But Trump could not ask her to be fired, as that would be the government "abridging" her freedom of speech.
Every company or organization has to deal with the government on some level. In the case of ESPN, it's the FCC, which Trump is technically in charge of.
The NFL has many government oversight agencies, including OSHA (concussions may come under this agency).
Trump is urging owners to fire individuals for expressing a political point of view. That would cause a "chilling" affect on the employees and the owners and violate the first amendment.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)His lawyers would argue he was exercising his freedom of speech.
meow2u3
(24,761 posts)It's a felony that could land him up to 15 years in prison for trying to pressure a private business to fire an employee out of sheer partisan politics.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)NFL players seeking month dedicated to social activism
Sep 21, 2017
A group of four players sent the NFL a memo in August requesting league support and asking for a month to be dedicated to social activism, not long after commissioner Roger Goodell reportedly had talked to several players regarding their game-day activism efforts.
According to Yahoo! Sports, Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett, Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins and wide receiver Torrey Smith, and former Arizona Cardinals wideout Anquan Boldin co-authored a 2,740-word document intended to push the NFL to honor activism in an effort "similarly to what the league already implements for breast cancer awareness, honoring military, etc."
The letter was obtained by Yahoo! Sports and originally published Wednesday night.
"We would like November to serve as a month of Unity for individual teams to engage and impact the community in their market," the memo states.
The letter was prepared shortly after Goodell spoke with several players who had protested on game day before the regular season kicked off, the Yahoo! report stated, citing two sources.
"For us, support means: bear all or part of the weight of; hold up; give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act. We need support, collaboration and partnerships to achieve our goal of strengthening the community," the letter stated.
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy issued a statement on Goodell's visit to Philadelphia, where he and Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie accepted an invitation by Jenkins to take a closer look at the city's justice system.
"Commissioner Goodell has been talking with players for some time about social justice issues and how to recognize the progress and the important work of our players in their communities across the country," McCarthy said in the statement.
"Malcolm invited the commissioner to Philadelphia a couple weeks ago to see and share in what they've been doing to impact criminal justice reform. Joined by Mr. Lurie, the Commissioner spent the day along with Malcolm and others meeting with community leaders and representatives of law enforcement. The commissioner is grateful to our players both for sharing their experiences and for all the important work they are doing in the community."
The meeting in Philadelphia occurred after the memo was sent to Goodell by the four players.
Bennett, Jenkins, Smith and Boldin either didn't return requests for comment to Yahoo! or declined to discuss the memo, citing an agreement to keep talks private, according to the website.
The league declined to comment on the memo to Yahoo! Sports but told ESPN's Josina Anderson on Thursday that "We are continuing to work directly with the players. These are private conversations."
Boldin retired in late August, two weeks after signing a one-year deal with the Buffalo Bills. He said in a statement that he felt "drawn to make the larger fight for human rights a priority. My life's purpose is bigger than football."
Earlier this month, the NFL affirmed it had no plans to investigate Bennett's behavior during an August incident in which he was detained and handcuffed by police in Las Vegas.
The league was responding to a letter Goodell had received from the president of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the union that represents police officers in that city. In the letter, the union alleged that Bennett made false accusations against Las Vegas police and asked the league to "conduct an investigation, and take appropriate action."
Bennett, who accused the Las Vegas police of unfairly targeting him and pointing a gun at his head, sat on the bench during the national anthem for a Seahawks preseason game on Aug. 13 and said at the time, "I can't stand right now. I'm not going to be standing until I see the equality and freedom."
ESPN's Tim McManus contributed to this report.
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Or internal google organizational documents.
Does not apply to ESPN journos or pro sports athletes. Special SS snowflakes like drumpf and his backers need a safe space.
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)"Trump went on to say that NFL ratings are down "massively, massively," because people prefer watching him."
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20788354/president-donald-trump-speaks-nfl-player-protests
mythology
(9,527 posts)First nobody has been fired (Kaepernick doesn't have a job because he's a shitty quarterback). Second he didn't order anybody be fired.
louis c
(8,652 posts)U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 11 › § 227
..
18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years,
Lawyer directory
Legal encyclopedia
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 11 › § 227
..
18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).
(Added Pub. L. 110–81, title I, § 102(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 739; amended Pub. L. 112–105, § 18(a), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 304.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains
nor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).
(Added Pub. L. 110–81, title I, § 102(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 739; amended Pub. L. 112–105, § 18(a), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 304.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains
onenote
(42,698 posts)Not applicable here. Trump didn't say fire all Democrats or those Democrats that kneel during the anthem. He said fire football players that kneel. Last time I checked, the NFL wasn't a political party. And "solely" really means "solely."
louis c
(8,652 posts)Come on.
The government can not retaliate against citizens for political speech, "solely". That's what it means.
If you're late for work, insubordinate, have poor work performance, a government official can ask for your removal, even in the private sector. But they can not ask for your firing based "solely" on political speech, which provides the basis of establishing your political affiliation.
onenote
(42,698 posts)18 USC 227
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
First of all, it doesn't say on the basis of political speech. It says on the basis of partisan political affiliation. You can't stretch one set of words to mean something much different. And while political speech may be an indicator of political "affiliation" -- if, for example, someone states "I am a Democrat" -- it often is not. Is John McCain a Democrat because he has spoken out against the Graham-Cassidy Act?
Second, the law specifically applies only where the government official takes or withholds, or offers to take or withhold, "an official act" or influences, or offers or threatens to influence the "official act" of another.
Official act =“any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.”
Not applicable here.
This provision is very narrowly drawn. The wording is plain and clear. You just choose to ignore the law's plain wording.
louis c
(8,652 posts)but I publicly criticize the President, the members of the executive branch of the Federal Government can lobby my private employer to terminate me for no other reason than my political opinion.
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
The above means influence "an employment decision" means any employment decision. It then goes on to give other examples
onenote
(42,698 posts)Demanding that you be fired isn't an official act.
In 2007, United States Senator Barack Obama publicly suggested that CBS radio should fire, rather than merely suspend, Don Imus for Imus' racist statements.
Should Obama have been prosecuted? After all, the law applies to Senators and members of Congress as well as the executive branch. And Senators vote on matters of great import to a company like CBS.
louis c
(8,652 posts)If Obama, as a U.S. Senator, specifically suggested that anyone be fired by a private company for political speech, he too, would be in violation of this law.
onenote
(42,698 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)An official act in the law is by way of example and in addition to the underlying infraction.
However, if you don't get, fine. As it turns out, the act must be more overt than a public suggestion, according to lawyers I spoke with in a causal conversation last night, but does not have to be an official act.
If the President, or another official, called a team owner, like say, Jets' owner Woody Johnson (new ambassador to UK) and told him to release a player who protested during the anthem, he would be in violation of this law.
In addition, any release, solely for this protest, would violate the player's rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. A team could release a player for other reasons, like poor performance, but they could not, under any circumstances, say publicly or privately that the release was due, even in part, for protesting.
onenote
(42,698 posts)It is an essential element. That could not be more clear. What is illegal is taking or withholding (or threatening to take or withhold, an "official act," or influences, or offers or threatens to influence the "official act" of another. Official acts are defined in the law as acts of the government.
18 USC 227
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I have a feeling you have never read a statute in your life.